Subject: [storm] IANA registries for iSCSI

From: "Mallikarjun Chadalapaka" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:18:53 -0700

RFC 3720 in section 13.4 says the following:

   For each of these registries, IANA must record the registered string,
   which MUST conform to the format rules described in Section 13.5.4
   Standard iSCSI extension item-label format for iSCSI extension
   item-labels, and the RFC number that describes it.  The key prefix
   (X#, Y# or Z#) is not part of the recorded string.

The "each of the registries" there refers to the three registries: extension
keys, digests and auth methods.

I noticed in RFC 4850 however that IANA did something different from RFC
3720's advice, see the excerpt:

   IANA registered this key as follows:
        o Key Name: X#NodeArchitecture

I.e., IANA's recorded string apparently included "X#".

The easiest way to address this would be to replace the last quoted sentence
from RFC 3720 text ("The key prefix.....") in the new iSCSI consolidated
draft with the following:

      The key prefix (X#, Y#, Z#) MUST be part of the recorded string.

Doing so would put all keys into the same registry, but the key prefix would
indicate what the key relates to - extension keys, digests or auth methods.
This also requires a few additional changes in the IANA section, but I can
handle that. 

Does that sound reasonable?  Anyone disagree?

Mallikarjun

---

From: "Paul Koning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:09:52 -0400

It seems that this resolves the mismatch by codifying what IANA does,
and it works just as well as what the original text called for.  Looks
fine to me.

	paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [storm] IANA registries for iSCSI
> 
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

---

From: Julian Satran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:00:28 +0300

sounds completely reasonable to me - Julo